Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj Shivasharanappa Avanti vs The State on 29 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
CRL.P No. 200891 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 200882 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200891 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200882 OF 2025
IN CRL.P. NO.200891/2025
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ SHIVASHARANAPPA AVANTI
AGE: 43 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
Digitally signed R/O KOLKUNDA VILLAGE, TQ. SEDAM
by
BASALINGAPPA DIST. KALABURAGI-585318.
SHIVARAJ ...PETITIONER
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND
1. THE STATE THROUGH THE POLICE
MUDHOL POLICE STATION
TQ. SEDAM DIST. KALABURAGI
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
CRL.P No. 200891 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 200882 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. SMT.LAXMI W/O SABANNA KAVALEKAR
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:BANK EMPLOYEE
R/O KOLKUNDA VILLAGE
TQ:SEDAM, DIST:KALABURAGI-585318.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVASHARAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN THE REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO.119/2024
REGISTERED BY THE MUDHOL POLICE STATION, TQ. SEDAM
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 69, 88 AND 318 OF
BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE V-
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN
S.C.NO.88/2025.
IN CRL.P. NO.200882/2025
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ SHIVASHARANAPPA AVANTI
AGE: 43 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KOLKUNDA VILLAGE, TQ. SEDAM
DIST. KALABURAGI-585318.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE THROUGH THE POLICE
MUDHOL POLICE STATION
TQ. SEDAM DIST. KALABURAGI
REPRESENTED BY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
CRL.P No. 200891 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 200882 of 2025
HC-KAR
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
2. SMT.LAXMI W/O SABANNA KAVALEKAR
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:BANK EMPLOYEE
R/O KOLKUNDA VILLAGE
TQ:SEDAM, DIST:KALABURAGI-585318.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA M REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVASHARAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.528
OF BNSS,2023 (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.19/2025,
REGISTERED BY MUDHOL POLICE STATION, SEDAM TALUK,
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS.329(4), 64, 62, 352 AND
351(2) OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT SEDAM.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
Both these petitions are filed by accused under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenging registration of
Crime No.119/2024 and Crime No.19/2025 by Mudhol
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
Police Station so also charge sheet filed in Crime
No.119/2024 against the petitioner by the said police on
the complaint of respondent No.2 in both the cases.
Facts in brief in Crime No.119/2024 are as under:
2. Respondent No.2 on 24.08.2024 lodged a
complaint against the petitioner herein stating that she
was married and her husband left her. Thereafter, she has
been residing in Kolkunda of Sedam Taluk.
Accused/petitioner known to her and he pretended to love
her. Thereafter, both were live-in-relationship for about 20
years. The accused used to assure her that after her
divorce from her husband, he would marry her and with
that assurance, he had physical relationship with her. She
became pregnant twice and accused purchased road side
ayurvedic medicine and gave her the same for termination
of pregnancy. He also took money from her from time to
time amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- and not repaid the same.
When she demanded for repayment of the said amount,
he criminally intimidated her. She lodged a complaint
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
before the Mudhol Police Station which was registered in
Crime No.119/2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 69, 88 and 318 of BNS, 2023. The Investigating
Officer (for short, 'I.O.') later on filed final report for the
same offences, it is registered as S.C.No.88/2025 and
pending before V-Additional District and Sessions Court,
Kalaburagi.
Facts in brief in Crime No.19/2025 are as under:
3. Respondent No.2 filed another complaint before
Mudhol Police Station on 09.02.2025 alleging that
petitioner herein after lodging the complaint in Crime
No.119/2024, continuously torturing her by making
frequent phone calls and also threatening her. On
08.02.2025, accused made a call to her and told her to
come along with him in his car. She refused to go.
Therefore, he went to her house and attempted to rape
her. She raised hue and cry, in the meanwhile, her brother
and father came and rescued her. On the basis of the said
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
complaint, Mudhol Police registered Crime No.19/2025 for
the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 64, 62,
352 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, said FIR is pending on the
file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sedam.
4. These petitions are filed to quash both the FIRs
as well as charge sheet filed in Crime No.119/2024.
5. During pendency of these petitions, petitioner
as well as respondent No.2 filed applications in both the
cases under Section 359(8) r/w Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for compounding the offences. Both have filed
affidavits in support of the said applications. Both have
also filed joint memos in this regard stating that the
matter is settled between the parties and respondent No.2
is not interested in further prosecuting the matter.
6. I have heard the arguments. On 27.05.2025,
respondent No.2 was present along with petitioner. On
enquiry, respondent No.2 has submitted that the matter
was compromised by the intervention of elders and she
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
does not want to proceed with the matter against the
petitioner and submits that both the petitions be allowed
by permitting them to compound the offences. The said
submission appears to be voluntary and without any
coercion. Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 were
identified by their respective Advocates.
7. In Crime No.119/2024, out of the offences
punishable under Sections 318, 69 and 88 of BNS, 2023,
except Section 69 of BNS, 2023, other two offences are
compoundable. Looking to the charge sheet, it appears
there are no materials to show that she was pregnant and
accused by giving ayurvedic tablets purchased from a road
side vendor, administered it to respondent No.2 which
resulted in her abortion. The concerned Doctors were
examined as CWs.14 and 15 by the I.O., and both of them
denied treating respondent No.2. It appears, there are no
sufficient material to prima facie accept the contention of
respondent No.2 that she was forcefully aborted by
administering ayurvedic medicine by the petitioner. The
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
allegations in the complaint do not show that forcefully
medicine was administered for abortion. In view of the
same, I am of the opinion that prima facie is not made out
to believe that petitioner has committed offence under
Section 69 of BNS, 2023. However, she herself has come
forward to settle the matter. Therefore, there is no need
for considering the same.
8. In Crime No.19/2025, FIR is registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 64, 62, 352, 351(2)
and 329(4) of BNS, 2023. It appears, so far, charge sheet
is not filed. Hence, question of compounding may not
arise. However, offences punishable under Sections 329,
352 and 351 of BNS, 2023 are compoundable offences and
are not heinous crime. Offence punishable under Section
64 r/w Section 62 of BNS, 2023 is non-compoundable and
it is an offence of attempt to commit rape. Allegation in
the FIR indicates that her father as well as brother were at
home, at the time of the incident. Both petitioner as well
as respondent No.2 were live-in-relationship for a period
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
of about 20 years as per her contention stated in the
Crime No.119/2024 and for the sake of marrying accused,
she divorced her husband during the year 2021.
Considering these facts, it appears, there are no sufficient
materials to believe that he had attempted to commit rape
on her.
9. The joint memos filed by complainant and
accused, it is signed by both the petitioner and respondent
No.2 so also in the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 dated
27.05.2025, on oath she has stated as under:
"3. I respectfully submit that, I and petitioner
herein wherein mutual relationship with each other,
that in the said relation due to financial transactions
some strain in the relation developed which lead to
filing of the complaint against the petitioner herein,
that on filing the complaint I realized the mistake
made by filing complaint against petitioner due to
amicable settlement between the parties to this
petition that in view of the same I does not want to
prosecute the case against the petitioner any further
and want to withdraw the allegations made in the
complaint against the petitioner out of free will and
consent.
4. I submit that in view of the harmonious
relationship developed by settling all the disputes
which has lead to filing of the complaint, I being the
complainant does not want to prosecute the case and
any further proceedings against petitioner would lead
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
to futile exercise and abuse of process of law and
Court to both the parties and also wastage of
valuable time of the court. Hence, permitting the
parties to compound the offences will meet ends of
justice.
5. I submit that the said compromise and
settlement had occurred out of my free will and
consent with the interference of elders and well
wishers of both the families to make both
complainant and petitioner to live in harmonious
atmosphere in peaceful manner, that in view of the
same the complainant does not want to prosecute
the case against the petitioner any further, hence,
the permission to compound the offence by allowing
the accompanying application will meet ends of
justice."
10. Considering the said settlement, it is just and
necessary to quash the FIR. Even if prosecution is
permitted to file charge sheet, if the complainant herself
does not support the case of the prosecution, it will be a
futile exercise and no purpose would be served. In view of
these reasons, it is just and necessary to permit both to
compound the offences.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this court in
Criminal Petition No.200885/2024 dated 22.07.2024 in the
case of Sudarshan S/o Beeru Metre vs. State of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
Karnataka and others, wherein this court permitted to
compound offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 323
and 376 of IPC relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022)14 SCC 531]. The
principle of law laid down in the said judgment is also
applicable to the facts of present case and there is no
hurdle to permit the parties to settle the matter. As
already stated above, respondent No.2 appeared and had
stated that she had compromised the matter by the
intervention of the elders. Considering these facts, I am of
the view that petitions are to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal Petition Nos.200891/2025 and
200882/2025 are allowed.
Entire proceedings in Crime No.119/2024 of
Mudhol Police Station, Kalaburagi District
(S.C.No.88/2025 pending before the Court of V-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2766
HC-KAR
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kalaburagi) registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 88, 69 and 318 of BNS, 2023 as
well as Crime No.19/2025 of Mudhol Police
Station, Kalaburagi District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 64, 62,
329(4), 352 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 pending
before the court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sedam, are quashed.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
NB
Ct: JLR
